Dialogue on Darfur

(This graphic will be important for later in this post.)

(This was also a dialogue about the media in general in this country...definitely a long one coming up here.)

I was involved in an interesting Email thread yesterday, and it started out as comments about this column from the New York Times on Tuesday.

All Ears for Tom Cruise, All Eyes on Brad Pitt

By Nicholas D. Kristof

Some of us in the news media have been hounding President Bush for his shameful passivity in the face of genocide in Darfur.

More than two years have passed since the beginning of what Mr. Bush acknowledges is the first genocide of the 21st century, yet Mr. Bush barely manages to get the word "Darfur" out of his mouth. Still, it seems hypocritical of me to rage about Mr. Bush's negligence, when my own beloved institution - the American media - has been at least as passive as Mr. Bush.

Condi Rice finally showed up in Darfur a few days ago, and she went out of her way to talk to rape victims and spotlight the sexual violence used to terrorize civilians. Most American television networks and cable programs haven't done that much.

Even the coverage of Ms. Rice's trip underscored our self-absorption. The manhandling of journalists accompanying Ms. Rice got more coverage than any massacre in Darfur has.

This is a column I don't want to write - we in the media business have so many critics already that I hardly need to pipe in as well. But after more than a year of seething frustration, I feel I have to.

Like many others, I drifted toward journalism partly because it seemed an opportunity to do some good. (O.K., O.K.: it was also a blast, impressed girls and offered the glory of the byline.) But to sustain the idealism in journalism - and to rebut the widespread perception that journalists are just irresponsible gossips - we need to show more interest in the first genocide of the 21st century than in the "runaway bride."

I'm outraged that one of my Times colleagues, Judith Miller, is in jail for protecting her sources. But if we journalists are to demand a legal privilege to protect our sources, we need to show that we serve the public good - which means covering genocide as seriously as we cover, say, Tom Cruise. In some ways, we've gone downhill: the American news media aren't even covering the Darfur genocide as well as we covered the Armenian genocide in 1915.

Serious newspapers have done the best job of covering Darfur, and I take my hat off to Emily Wax of The Washington Post and to several colleagues at The Times for their reporting. Time magazine gets credit for putting Darfur on its cover - but the newsweeklies should be embarrassed that better magazine coverage of Darfur has often been in Christianity Today.

The real failure has been television's. According to monitoring by the Tyndall Report, ABC News had a total of 18 minutes of the Darfur genocide in its nightly newscasts all last year - and that turns out to be a credit to Peter Jennings. NBC had only 5 minutes of coverage all last year, and CBS only 3 minutes - about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths. In contrast, Martha Stewart received 130 minutes of coverage by the three networks.

Incredibly, more than two years into the genocide, NBC, aside from covering official trips, has still not bothered to send one of its own correspondents into Darfur for independent reporting.
"Generally speaking, it's been a total vacuum," said John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, speaking of television coverage. "I blame policy makers for not making better policy, but it sure would be easier if we had more media coverage."

When I've asked television correspondents about this lapse, they've noted that visas to Sudan are difficult to get and that reporting in Darfur is expensive and dangerous. True, but TV crews could at least interview Darfur refugees in nearby Chad. After all, Diane Sawyer traveled to Africa this year - to interview Brad Pitt, underscoring the point that the networks are willing to devote resources to cover the African stories that they consider more important than genocide.

If only Michael Jackson's trial had been held in Darfur. Last month, CNN, Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS collectively ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson as they ran about genocide in Darfur.

The BBC has shown that outstanding television coverage of Darfur is possible. And, incredibly, mtvU (the MTV channel aimed at universities) has covered Darfur more seriously than any network or cable station. When MTV dispatches a crew to cover genocide and NBC doesn't, then we in journalism need to hang our heads.

So while we have every right to criticize Mr. Bush for his passivity, I hope that he criticizes us back. We've behaved as disgracefully as he has.

E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com

Here are the responses from two individuals in the thread:

Person 1: That is how it works. Media brainwashes people not informing them. Most people are more interested in cheesy celebrities stories, then what is going on in the world. Most Americans don't know what Darfur is.

Person 2: So what is this? A 'mea culpa' beating of the chest and tearing of cloth to show shame?

What can this Times journalist tell any conscious Black person or anyone with a social conscience about the perception of any story pertaining to Black people that could show Black people to be human with human feelings, or achievers in anything besides entertainment and sports?

What can this Times journalist tell us about Earl Caldwell, a Black journalist, who worked for the Times during the turbulent 60s and early 70s who was left on his own by the managing staff of the Times when he didn't want to reveal a source? Caldwell's case that was taken to the Supreme Court is the decision that ultimately cemented the legal footing that The Times and Judith Miller can stand on today to protect her so-called sources.

How can this Times journalist be so bold as to pat his profession and employer on the back and his charlatan of a colleague, Judith Miller, when it is apparent that the Times failed to fact-check Ms. Miller's narratives when it came time to bombing Iraq.

Let's not forget the point here - the burden of guilt will never leave people who know they've done wrong. It's overdue for the Times to address their lack of reporting on Darfur. National and International organizations are denouncing that news outfit left and right.

The NY Times is considered the foremost periodical in the US and the world. Yet - you find no one reporting on the devastation happening in Haiti, no one reporting on genocide in Darfur, no one reporting on the continued uprisings in Sierra Leone, no one reporting on machinations that will spur a genocide in Ecuador, no one reporting - no one reporting.

That newspaper and others like it - took up two weeks going over the details of the bombing in London. Bombings are not so infrequent in Europe - why then the emphasis on the numbers dead and injured? You have more people dying and injured in non-white countries all the time...Yet no one bothers to look - why?

Good points, and I don’t have any answers to those questions, except to speculate that those locations have nothing to do with what our politicians define as “protecting our national interests” (re: if they have oil, it isn’t worth the time and trouble to go get it). Also, Clinton backed off on anything to do with Africa after our Marines were shamefully killed and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

Here is my response to the first two responses:

Thanks very much for passing this along. The responses are excellent (reflecting the truly depressing reality, however).

I don't think Nicholas Kristof, who I usually respect, is trying to let himself off the hook in his comments. At least he is showing a conscience and a recognition that something is unbelievably wrong in the news business in this country. For what it's worth, I just did a Google search on Darfur, and the first article I came across, aside from a Washington Post blurb about naming a new envoy yesterday, was in The New Yorker Magazine dated last August. So far, it's the only story of any depth that I can find from a US news organization.

At times like this, I am grateful to the really good "bloggers" who are out there, such as The Daily Kos and the people at the Al Franken Show web site at Air America. These are the only places where I can find some reporting on Darfur aside from what I just mentioned.

There are all kinds of travesties in reporting out there aside from what the respondents mentioned. When I talk to people about this, I say that this all started in the 70s when news organizations had to become profit centers (which coincided with the conservative ascendancy in this country that currently subjugates us). There was a time when you would watch a network newscast and see real, live reporting from actual locations around the world, and it wasn't because some celebrity showed up there to make a movie, hunt big game, get a divorce, or whatever. It was legitimate news analysis of what was going on in that country by professional journalists who were actually there. Now, I would imagine that approximately the same amount of time is spent on Britney Spears' morning sickness as would be spent on coverage of factional infighting in Venezuela or cash outflow in Russia due to dollar appreciation against the ruble, and I don't think even turning off the damn TV in protest (which I've done, in part) would matter at this point.

Here's another one for you - did any of the TV networks report about Sir Richard Doll, the epidemiologist who first reported the link between cigarette smoking and cancer? He died a few days ago. But oh, someone found a blonde hair in Aruba that might belong to Natalee Holloway (not trying to minimize that tragedy), so guess what made the newscast instead?

Person 2 responded with this:

The Nation, Trinity Broadcasting, The Word Network, LINK TV, WBAI, AgencePresse, AlterPress, Madre etc..have continuously reported on Darfur. There is no 'mainstream' analysis - what there is the same type of editorial-non-reporting hogwash that Kristof gave in his piece.

What is a report? I think a report is a verbal or written summary of an event that occurred. Many times, it is in a comparative manner; sometimes in a cumulative. Since no one is omnipresent - the reliance on others to coordinate their efforts to keep the general public apprised of events is more than a job - it's a de facto statement of trust.

When Corporations own media houses, like weeklies, monthlies, publishing houses, and tv/radio stations - what kind of reporting can the public receive? The journalists become mere mouthpieces. There can be no analysis. How can you talk about the greenhouse effect when your owner is Toyota Corporation? How can you criticize bias in election coverage when Rupert Murdoch is your boss? Need I go on?

Kristof is not showing conscience...Let's think about the point he's trying to make. I can't 'speak' for the man...nor can I pretend that I know it all. What then is Kristof's point?

Is he saying there should be actual reporting done in mainstream media as journalists are expected to do? Is he decrying the fact that systemic slaughter is overlooked in 'Dark' countries? Is he even hinting that the root of under reporting of actual news is due to the prostituting of the very journalistic principles that the Times and Ms. Miller are so quick to reference now that their backs are against the wall?

(By the way, I know one of the respondents in this thread is African American and I strongly suspect that the other is also, and I am not. However, even though I am mentioning this, I consider that point to be totally irrelevant.)

Person 1 responded with this:

There’s plenty of blame to go around.

My contention is that there are things that the “liberal” press won’t cover, and there are things that the “conservative” press won’t cover. Many talking heads being advanced by both sides never reveal when there are PAID shills for a particular agenda. They also don’t disclose that they once worked in previous administrations. Neither “liberal” nor “conservative” media tells you that a piece of video they play during the broadcast was compiled by the PR department of some corporation, or by a government agency.

Let’s take, for example Amy Goodman, who I do credit for covering\uncovering some big stories way before the rest of the media chimed in. Why doesn’t she ever talk about Soros’ influence in her organization? Or her sweetheart deal with Pacifica? Why doesn’t the media (both liberal & conservative) not disclose that their guest so-and-so who’s the head of such-and-such organization has served in a lobbying capacity for a particular interest? Who funds their so-called think tank?

I suspect there is so much compromise and corruption in both camps that neither side really wants to go all out and attack the other. So they make their stand for their pet issues, and never really advance the national dialogue beyond sound bites.

(I’m still checking on the Amy Goodman/George Soros thing, by the way. If I find anything, I’ll post it here.)

Here is the last comment (from Person 1)

(Person 2’s) response prompted me to do a quick search on the following sites, and here are the results of stories (see graphic at top of post). And CBS has a whole interactive section about Holloway, complete with photos, right on their main page.

We’ve all heard of Laci Peterson. Today marks only the first time I’ve seen a national news outlet mention Latoyia Figueroa, another missing pregnant woman, but from Philly. She’s been gone over a week.

I know CNN and Atrios each had something on Latoyia Figueroa yesterday, by the way. I don’t know of any updates in that story right now.

I think all of this stuff is worth thinking about. I will provide any and all updates if and when I can.

(By the way, I think Tom Cruise is a dick for poking fun at psychiatry and trivializing postpartum depression, and so is anyone else who feels that way also, including Howard Stern.)